Democratic voters are solidly (though not overwhelmingly) pro-free-trade, more so than Republicans:
Younger Democrats are particularly supportive (which is ironic given Bernie, but hey).
Good to see things suddenly got better although I’d be interested in theories on why Democrats suddenly turned.
My sense is that this is particularly caused by young and urban/professional Dems (often one and the same). They are into the new, dynamic, global order. Which, again, shows that Bernie is an imperfect tribune for that group. I could picture a young Silicon Valley type progressive who would really get them going.
This of course is at odds with the traditional, white blue collar Rust Belt type Democrats, but they have been declining in importance within the party for a long time.
Bush was and is an avid reader, especially of biography. I know that doesn’t fit into the conveniently simple storyline, but it’s true.
Obama is also an avid reader; Reagan and Eisenhower were not. But certainly no President has ever simply not read books at all, as is apparently the case with Trump.
Compared to the wall, and xenophobia, and the new nationalism, and Islamophobia, and flirting with white supremacism, that’s nothing.
I think it was the tonsil stone that did it for me.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Neither do novels, if we’re playing that game.
Seeing the volume of pro-Trump comments at the end of that article, I’m getting that skin-crawling sensation again. Liquor cabinet, it may be an early day today!
I’ve just had a conversation with my brother about Trump. Unlike me, he’s actually been to America. He’s very concerned about Trump becoming president and thinks Clinton might well lose. He says that there’s a fundamental disconnect between the proles and the elites. Regardless of the facts she can state, because she’s an insider Clinton could be seen as part of the problem, that she and her ilk caused the current situation so they’ve nothing to lose by voting for Trump. Further, the haves are seen to have so much more than the have-nots. ‘If we cannot have it, you cannot have it either.’ Consider Russia in 1917, Eastern Europe in 1989, and France in 1789. The proles have simply lost trust in the elites, the establishment, and much of the press (being cast as the voice of the elites). And then there’s immigration. The poor see their jobs being taken by immigrants. They know that internationalism is a good thing long-term, but they have the here-and-now problems of not having jobs, and see the internationalism as strictly one-way.
He has to work with people who haven’t gotten the word “Don’t work for Trump; he’ll stiff you.”, e.g."
Circuit Court Judge Jorge Cueto.
I’m surprised we haven’t heard about this conspiracy to get all of Trump’s cases heard by very biased, unfair, horrible Mexican judges.
This brief interview of a Mexican immigrant Trump supporter left me utterly disturbed.
See, she’s not Mexican American, she’s just American, even though she was born in Mexico. But a man born in the US is a Mexican, and there’s no way he could be unbiased. And not all Mexicans are lazy, rapist, drug dealers. Not all! A lot, but not all!
And/or people who *have *gotten word, but are sufficiently dazzled by celebrity - a low-key, anonymous businessman who followed Trump’s practices would indeed find that eventually nobody would be willing to work for him.
I can’t find it, but someone in a recent SDMB thread told a story of his father having tried the tactics in The Art of the Deal when hiring contractors to work on his house (low-balling, reducing the amount after the deal had been struck, refusing to pay, etc). Years later, when the son had to take over his father’s affairs, he couldn’t get anyone to do repairs on the house, because every contractor in town remembered what the old man had done.
Trump’s old nemesis Spy magazine claimed that Martha Stewart once stiffed a caterer for $X, advising, “You tell people that you worked for Martha Stewart - that’s worth *way *more than $X”.
Got any cites that show this is something that happened suddenly? first, I guess, what do you consider “suddenly”?
(bolding mine)
Your brother understands the political climate in America better than most Americans do, Quartz. The bolded part is the most important part, but the rest of what you wrote isn’t wrong either; I’ve been saying those things for months now.
Many people are unable yet to accurately gauge the level of discontent but I’ll bet that on 9 November they will have some personal perspective to draw on.
Pretty clever of Trump, then, to manage to make himself to NOT seem like an “elite” and a “have,” when he’s both.
A musing inspired by elsewhere: like Pence, there are a few Republican governors out there who aren’t very popular. Would it be fruitful for the local Democrats to run ads tying Trump to those governors via the party?
In Pence’s speech at the RNC, he proclaimed that any time conservative principles were applied in a state, the result was overwhelmingly positive. Except in Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback ruined the state budget with tax cuts that ballooned the deficit. Someone should highlight that.
Pfft. Like “facts” matter.
Don Quixote, Bleak House, Ulysses, and The Master and Margarita ain’t meaty enough reads for ya, Brainiac?
Bloomberg apparently has an article (no link right now, sorry) quoting a “source” that Trump is thinking of spending $20 million of his own money on super PACs to ruin Cruz and Kasich for the last week, with his results in November being irrelevant.
There’s no confirmation that I know of, but as both liberals and conservatives have observed, is it really that hard to imagine him doing so?